Posted by unregistered user at 11/1/07 7:06 p.m.

Bair most definitely is disassociating himself from the last round of Boeing delay excuses.

It looks to be far more fundamental and far reaching.

Could easily be mid 2009 before this plane enters service.

I give sufficient respect to Boeing to know it willl not enter service before it is truly ready, but I dont believe this will be 2008.

Maybe we could see some contractors walking away ot maybe even being pushed.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 12:31 a.m.

The most remarkable point in Mike Bair's speech is the fact that Boeing is still capable of doing the job when a supplier fails.

Work is (sub)contracted to lower Boeing's own industrial footprint. But, Boeing does not lose the capability to do the work if needed.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 2:09 a.m.

remarkable comments of Bair indeed. It confirms what has been known in the industry for some time : Boeing is learning some tough lessons in this process.

Lets not forget many of the governments like Italy, Japan and US states invested heavely in order to gert a piece of the big 787 pie. In return they demanded more then "build to print" kind of work.

The unprecendented contributions of those parties enabled Boeing to develop a real advanced (expensive) new aircraft while keeping the price low, resulting in unprecedented sales.

What we are watching now is the other side of the medal, the risks associated with this ambitious strategy.

rgds keesje

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 3:29 a.m.

Hmm, Mike Bair and rest of the top management at Boeing must have felt, that after the Sonic Cruiser boondoggle, the 7E7 would have to constitute a technological leap forward, if they were to remain an equal contender at the forefront in the civilian airliner business.

I would guess that the mandrel molding production method must have looked like a simple and elegant method to them, and not the least; a "hi-tech" way in which to leapfrog Airbus; however rushed their design might be.

Currently, Boeing does carry a lot of weight as an Original Equipment Manufacturer, and based on its past performance credentials, the company obviously has a lot of clout with their customers. However, past performance is not necessarily indicative on how a future program will perform; and especially not when the OEM does not follow industrial best-practice recommendations that suggest new products should use existing processes and tools, the existing organization and demonstrated technologies.

Well, guess what, Boeing didn't follow any of the industrial best-practice recommendations. It appears that they threw a Hail Mary pass to try to "win" the fierce fight for market share in the LCA business in the second decade of the millenium.

Posted by Leelaw at 11/2/07 3:59 a.m.

...Bob Bogash, a retired director in Boeing's supplier-purchasing organization, waggishly suggested that Bair's removal is one of six typical stages of an aerospace program. He recited them: euphoria, disillusionment, panic, search for the guilty, punish the innocent, reward the uninvolved.

"You pick where we are now," Bogash wrote in an e-mail...Seattle Times, October 17, 2007

Mr. Bair hasn't had enough time to process his grief sufficiently in order to be credibly offering dispositive judgements/pronouncements about what he wrought.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 4:36 a.m.

Bair may have been just spouting off, especially if he did not have a speech that could be scrubbed.

Boeing does not let too much extemporaneous material to be associated with their name. Those who rise up know how to parrot and play the talking head (Carson is an extreme example).

So, the 787 model is not as golden as we were led to believe. Is anyone really surprised?

Tell it to those who lost their jobs and pensions due to some upper-guffer being allowed to follow his dreams (Dreamliner, indeed).

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 5:28 a.m.

It's uncertain how Alenia got the work anyway. Now, they may be on the bad list.

Well, for the 757, Boeing tried to offload some work to Alenia. Fortunately for Alenia, but evidently unfortunately for Boeing, the 757 got cancelled.

Was the bad offload experience a consideration in the decision to drop the 757? If true, then why turn around and push work back to Alenia (oh yes, several used this offload to boost their career, even though it never was completed)?

We have to remember that there was the Italian tanker. All this stuff gets complicated real quick when political issues muddy the water.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 6:25 a.m.

New vote. http://7-oops-7.blogspot.com/

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 12:05 p.m.

#62423

More nationalistic bitter xenophobic drivel.
Why do you assume a non US company is to blame for the 787 program failures?

Lets look at another great program, ie the V22 Osprey, can you tell me which non US company is to blame for that flying joke, or is it an all American failure?

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 12:26 p.m.

Ok, talking Barrel Mismatch

From the "unofficial photos"...

One barrel was clearly overflush by approx 0.25" at one point, at no other point on the diameter was it underflush, therefore the diameter of one barrel was approx 0.25" greater than the other. The real problem is that the circumference is therefore 0.75" longeron one barrel when it should be much closer, so when you start bolting up you either need a lot of spacers to distribute the gap around the fuselage (prohibitively expensive and work intensive), you make "proper" matching barrels, or you do what Boeing have done, make up some special joining pieces down one side and whack in a load of filler.

There is no easy fix to this problem!

Commentators such as Leelaw were correct pillory the rollout, it was a complete joke!

This was a Boeing interface slip up!

Rad White

Posted by halfshaft at 11/2/07 12:47 p.m.

'Work is (sub)contracted to lower Boeing's own industrial footprint. But, Boeing does not lose the capability to do the work if needed."

Don't be so sure. Boeing is having a VERY difficult time getting engineers.
Many engineers don't want to work for a company that is offloading it's design capability.
Engineers like to design things; they are less enthusiastic about monitoring suppliers who are doing the real design work.
The problems that Bair commented on were accurately predicted by most Boeing employees when Boeing presented the plan on how the 787 was to be designed and built.
And when I say, "most Boeing employees", I am speaking of employees that DO NOT make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in salary and even more in stock options. It is inexcusable to me that executives that are supposed to be leaders fail to recognize obvious risks when coming up with plans that are so different than past practices.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 2:20 p.m.

#62526 wrote: It is inexcusable to me that executives that are supposed to be leaders fail to recognize obvious risks when coming up with plans that are so different than past practices.

It is important that these companies do take risks. That is the point, if they played it safe they would have an updated 767, what good would that have done. Risk and failure is how companies grow provided two things - The failure is not so immense it takes them down, and two they learn from it. If the 787 turns into a 2 year delay boondoggle then it may approach that immense failure. If Boeing actually manages their way out the maze and actually deliver 100+ planes by 2009 then all will be well and the risk and failure will permanently move the bar to a higher level. If they deliver 6 airplanes by April of 2009 then they will be in serious serious trouble. So it is to early to call the risk an abject failure. We will now get to see how well Boeing Executives can really manage. It will be interesting to see how they do compared to EADS when they ran into trouble.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 8:58 p.m.

Bair used to say we "hired them for their ability to the job". What an incredible screening process.
Bair said, it would be better to have a central manufacturing site rather than the global assembly method that is being used for the 787. No kiddin, I don't believe it. That is radical.
Real engineers can look at the 787 and see that it is an aluminum plane made out of graphite. Revolutionary? he, he.
Boeing Senior Managers, take a good look in the mirror and you'll see who's at fault.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/2/07 10:20 p.m.

Isn't it odd how the "fastener shortage" and "late software" excuses have suddenly become footnotes?

Posted by unregistered user at 11/3/07 4:49 a.m.

#62410
The most remarkable point in Mike Bair's speech is the fact that Boeing is still capable of doing the job when a supplier fails.

Thats a joke. Boeing does not have the capability to design nor the manufacturing expertise to make the 787.
If they were so clever they would have done it cheaper and faster in their own backyard.

Instead we are looking at an indefinite delay until they decide what the hell to do.
I expect first flight dates as they are talking about, but the real boeing injury will be 2 year delays to the majority of the customers.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/3/07 5:39 a.m.

The real victim of the 787 debacle is A350XWB.

It won't be a surprise if Airbus decides to delay the firm configuration to the first half of 2009.
They will have to think again how they will build the airplane.

Posted by Leelaw at 11/3/07 6:26 a.m.

Isn't it odd how the "fastener shortage" and "late software" excuses have suddenly become footnotes?

Good Point

All roads which led to the "roll-out" of the "Potemkin Dreamliner" on "7/8/7" passed through Mike Bair, he needs fresh rationalizations to begin repairing his reputation. I'm not sure that his substantive remarks offered on 10/31/07, are any more insightful or credible than some of the hogwash he spouted in September and July. What's truly "remarkable" is that he'd be doing any public speaking on behalf of The Boeing Co. at this juncture. If Bair was a celebrity or politician his minders would have checked him into a long-term "rehab" by now to prevent any further embarassing outbursts. :-)

Posted by Jumpmaster3 at 11/3/07 6:45 a.m.

"The real victim of the 787 debacle is A350XWB."

Yes, this is the kind of logic the world so deeply admires.

Posted by Eddie68 at 11/3/07 6:55 a.m.

We have been telling this to Boeing for years. When you offload all this stuff, you will become hostage to your vendors. The ONLY people in the world that have the knowledge skills and abilities to build these marvelous flying machines are the men and women of the Puget Sound, Wichita and Portland. With over 75 years of experience, they are the only workforce in the world that can pull these challenges off.

When these Harvard bookworms pull their heads out of the clouds and start BUILDING aircraft again instead of outsourcing everything, only then will they survive.

It is the men and women of the Puget Sound, Wichita and Portland who constantly pull this company out of their messes. They will do it again...and again because you can't convince these self proclaimed "brilliant" people of the right way to do something.

Just like a child, they have to learn from their mistake the hard way. Sometimes they learn, sometimes they repeat the same mistakes but there is always mommy and daddy there to guide them through the mess they got themselves in.

and so we move on....

Posted by unregistered user at 11/3/07 8:11 a.m.

I sympathise with you Eddie68, but I think that the French, Deutschers and Brits ie Airbus are also up to the job.
The main point here is that both big companies are following the same trend of outsourcing work, with Boeing being the more extreme. I hope that Airbus and Boeing look and see what has happened and that they also learned from A380 and reverse the trend of outsourcing.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/3/07 10:29 a.m.

When are Bloeing due to give the next 787 program update?
I'm looking forward to hearing about misaligned barrels, phantom fasteners, software code issues, overweight aircraft, underperforming GE engines, etc...

Posted by Jumpmaster3 at 11/3/07 10:39 a.m.

Hi #62826,

you have just writen exactly the post I was going to write myself. And, yes, it is a shame what happens to "the men and women of the Puget Sound, Wichita and Portland" Eddie68 mentioned. But as they keep telling us- greed works, greed is good for us....

Posted by unregistered user at 11/3/07 3:16 p.m.

When are Bloeing due to give the next 787 program update?

December

Posted by unregistered user at 11/3/07 4:27 p.m.

#62876 - You are the perfect example of empty barrels making the greatest noise.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/3/07 4:36 p.m.

a poster on another blog said it best - "Go on the Boeing plant tour at Everett,WA which is available to anyone every day and you can stand within 120 feet or so of the first 787 and within 200 feet or so of the second. Boeing is NOT dismantling number one, the fuselage is complete, the wings attached and it is on its wheels. There is evidence of minor re-work on the fuselage joins-Boeing long ago admitted they would have to replace the temporary fasteners. All of the work is now taking place inside the aircraft. This is absolutely consistent with Boeing's statement that the main problem is completing the travel work. On the tour, they'll also tell you that number two has been rescheduled as a static test article so that there is less work involved in completing it. They will catch up with number three. Notice, there have been NO rumors of barrel matching problems on number two-because there weren't any! IF Boeing was dismantling the number one and scrapping barrels, you would either see that on the tour OR they would have taken the 787 off the tour. Unless you are into serious conspiracy theories, the rumors are just not credible. I wonder how many people got to tour the A380 plant when they were tearing out miles of wiring and manually re-wiring the plane?"

Posted by unregistered user at 11/3/07 6:53 p.m.

sell out one of our last high tech manufacturing bases for the almighty dollar! Did anyone with any kind of intelligence really think that assembling this aircraft with sub-assemblies produced all over the world would really go off without serious hitches. They get what they deserve selling out our highly skilled aerospace jobs!!!

Posted by unregistered user at 11/3/07 9:23 p.m.

http://flightblogger.blogspot.com/

seems to be coming back.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/4/07 1:06 a.m.

#62950

When the photos of the mismatch were leaked Boeing were livid. For such photos to get out showed serious breaches in security not to mention confidentiality issues from employees. Boeing have now clamped dowm as they were mortally embarrassed by both the photos and by the leak itself.
You will not see a 0.25" gap from 120 feet. The mismatch problem still exists. I reckon they will now have spacer panels moulded up that go 360 degrees around the joint. What this will do for fatigue on the bolts is anyones guess, and it will have added much weight and cost.
This is one relatively minor issue, I'd love to see what else is going on.

The program is an utter mess.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/4/07 3:51 a.m.

Is Trent 1000 better than Trent 900?
If it is the case, isn't Trent 900 obsolete?

Posted by unregistered user at 11/4/07 4:34 a.m.

A320 is better than 737, but that doesnt make it obsolete, its just designed for a previous generation.

GENX is better than the GE90-115B, but does that mean it too is obsolete?

Posted by unregistered user at 11/4/07 5:11 a.m.

Trent 900 enters into service in 2007, Trent 1000 enters into service in 2008.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/4/07 6:16 a.m.

787-8 Specifications 2006:

OEW 240k
MZFW 340k
Payload 100k
MTOW 480k

2007:

OEW 252.5k
MZFW 345k
Payload 100k
MTOW 484k

It has a comparable weight to the the A330-200 now. A slightly lower max payload and a lower MTOW.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/4/07 7:19 a.m.

@ #62974

Agreed, and instead of bashing your parents, be a man, and take responsibility for your bold global plans. After all, Boeing is responsible for the 787. Not some company in Italy.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/4/07 8:20 a.m.

Trent 900 enters into service in 2007, Trent 1000 enters into service in 2008.

In your dreams son!

Posted by unregistered user at 11/5/07 9:55 a.m.

What is it with this guy Bair?????? I don't understand ,usually when you get kicked out of a job for not doing your job properly you don't go and publically admit it too!!!!!!

Posted by unregistered user at 11/5/07 11:47 a.m.

Hey 1/4" gap guy, and Boeing is a stupid job outsourcing guy, answer a question for me. If Boeing has screwed the pooch so bad how come their stock is still up above $90 and EADS is below 25 and headed down?

Posted by TriplePac at 11/5/07 12:34 p.m.

That's what they get for closing the surplus store!

Seriously though, as one who grew up in the culture of one of the suppliers AND customers, he should should be shot for such a public flogging of them regardless of the problems. Maybe that's a little insight into his day to day management style. Counterproductive American arrogance in a global economy; period. For Boeing's case, they need to get rid of him. Boeing seems to be exhibiting an alarming level of leadership. Keep it up & they'll be worrying about Mitsubishi instead of Airbus. And StockBoy #63372; let me guess... you never turned a wrench, flew a plane or heck, produced anything. You just move money around... America used to produce a thing called a quality product until your kind came along.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/5/07 1:14 p.m.

Stocky here for 63385: I would be willing to bet I have created more jobs, sent more children of my employees to college and paid more home mortgages than you and 10 guys like you will in the next 20 years. I have personally put my nuts on the chopping block and created jobs by risking my money. Not the tax payers money, not other peoples money, my money, so stick it, and talk about things you know and don't pop off about things you don't know.

Counterproductive American arrogance: Apparently creating the greatest economic engine the world has ever known is counter productive.

"The transformation of EADS requires substantial efforts across the group. Airbus in particular, requires an overhaul of the original industrial set-up, a behavioural evolution and more modesty...."

This little gem came from EADS own website, so who is the arrogant ones?

I will agree with you that Bair should watch his mouth and watch how he talks about their vendor/partners. It does no good to humiliate a company having difficulty.

If anybody wants to talk about when and how we will know if Boeing is getting a handle on things or if it is starting to implode on them then post, but stick to facts and things your really know, or openly speculate, but don't pretend to be an expert about things you don't know.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/5/07 1:30 p.m.

Another storm before the calm.

When the magnitude of the A380 delays became public, there was no shortage of experts and prognosticators to assign blame and predict the end of Airbus in loud public forum, while others worked quietly, identified and resolved problems. In the end, the A380 was delivered with great fanfare, and my congratulations to those underappreciated engineers and workers who never get corporate bonuses.

It will be the same for the 787. Ther true heroes will get the job done, deliver a good product that will result in great fanfare and absurd corporate bonuses. Then we will have to wait and see which company had the better vision, Airbus or Boeing.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/5/07 1:31 p.m.

Hasn't anyone thought that Bair's comments were a calculated corporate move to set the stage for (a) taking over management of the programs or (b) lawsuits or (c) some other motive yet to be revealed or (d) to use Boeing's own snafus in this area to lobby congress and the air force that Northrop's similar production model for the KC-30 is fraught with risk? Boeing now can certainly speak from experience on (d).

Posted by unregistered user at 11/5/07 3:29 p.m.

#63406 I agree with you, the news of the demise of Airbus was a little premature, as with Boeing. Airbus is not out of the woods yet, they are having major cash flow issues at the moment. It will be interesting to see if the Execs can navigate their way out of the maze without hemorrhaging the EADS did. I am sure the people of Boeing know how to fix each individual problem that exists on the 787 program. The question is if management can assign the proper priority to most critical items and commit the resources to fix them, if it can be fixed in time, or will they blow the whole thing. Assuming they fix the problems, when would that become clear? Assuming they fail, what will be the first clue that is happening?

Posted by Leelaw at 11/5/07 3:32 p.m.

Hasn't anyone thought that Bair's comments were a calculated corporate move to set the stage for (a) taking over management of the programs or (b) lawsuits or (c) some other motive yet to be revealed or (d) to use Boeing's own snafus in this area to lobby congress and the air force that Northrop's similar production model for the KC-30 is fraught with risk? Boeing now can certainly speak from experience on (d).

Why would you send someone as tainted as Mike Bair to raise the trial balloon(s)? Wouldn't controlled, strategic leaks to the press via anonymous sources be a more diplomatic way to disseminate the message, rather than trotting-out someone with "unclean hands" who may have axes to grind?

Posted by unregistered user at 11/5/07 9:37 p.m.

Leelaw (and others) see this from a guy who knows Bair pretty well

http://washingtonceo.com/home/blogs/post/article/128/bair-in-the.html

Posted by Leelaw at 11/5/07 10:33 p.m.

@ 63542 Thanx for the link

However, I find the "Great Satan" Aboulafia's assessment of Mr. Bair's recents remarks in his November Newsletter far more interesting:

...Boeing has done extremely well with global sourcing so far. The 767 and 777 were hugely successful with exactly this kind of global supply chain. The top-tier 787 suppliers that Bair criticized, by the way, are valued partners or suppliers on these aircraft. And the 787 looks set to be the successful culmination of these global trends.

Geography has never been a problem for Boeing. Outsourcing (in the US and abroad) works great for the company. The real problem is that this time they trusted, but didn't verify. In their zeal to maximize profit and spread much of the financial risk, they offloaded most of the airframe responsibilities without the due diligence needed to ensure that their partners could do the design and integration work. Boeing's unrealistic 787 program schedule didn't help either. Even if it was the partners that screwed up, it was ultimately Boeing's mistake—the buck stops at the prime contractor.[emphasis added]

The supersite idea, by contrast, sounds completely dysfunctional. Imagine the labor consequences. In good times, you'd see hellish wage inflation for engineers and manufacturing workers, with Boeing and its contractors all poaching employees from each other. In bad times, you'd have a regional employment slowdown that would create armies of workers scrambling to Mexico for maquiladora jobs. A jetliner "bust" cycle would cripple an entire region. Requiring foreign partners to relocate work and jobs to the US would eliminate Japanese, Italian or other government financial support for new programs (to his credit, Bair made this last point in his speech). You'd see fewer bidders vying to work with Boeing on the next plane. Of course, the prospect of a supersite does serve as a ploy to attract the mother of all incentive packages from state and local governments...

Posted by unregistered user at 11/6/07 6:38 a.m.

The difference in the 787 and A330 manufacturing is that Airbus is very experienced at assembling large aircraft parts together in Toulouse from all around Europe and can transfer its knowledge and experience when assembling the KC-30.
Who is Bair trying to con, only himself, no intelligent will believe him.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/6/07 9:35 a.m.

Bair should just shut up and be thankful he still has a job. Stop threatning the State of Washington to provide more tax incentive for Boeing to stay. How is this difference from Airbus subsidy. Boeing executives have known for a very long time that there be delay. No one was honest enough to share that so innocent shareholders purchased Boeing stocks thinking of rosie future is now suffering. Could a class action law suit be far away?

Posted by unregistered user at 11/9/07 1:42 p.m.

#63372

Lets talk in about a year from now after this 787 boondoggle. The defense arm is keeping the stock sky high!

Posted by unregistered user at 11/10/07 12:13 p.m.

Defence spendind will soon collapse when enough people get p1ssed that their lover ones are coming home in body bags.
Coupled with the credit crisis, no US company is safe!

Posted by unregistered user at 11/12/07 9:46 a.m.

There are plenty of qualified candidates outside of Seattle, Portland, and Wichita. It is that kind of thinking that put Boeing in this spot in the first place. The "men and women of Puget Sound" made sure that the next time the work would return to their hands. If that meant sabotaging the efforts of their "partners", so be it. Nothing comes before the almighty SPEEA.

Posted by unregistered user at 12/4/07 6:49 p.m.

Maybe Bobbie could quit using suppliers that have partnered with Boeing for decades and hire some of the boy scouts that he spends so much time with. Someone in Boeing should check that out to see if the sourcing strategy could transition from qualified suppliers around the world to Bobbie's pedophyle fantasies in the Puget Sound area.

Boeing is full of losers, and that guy is the biggest loser of them all -- fire him for cause if not for stupidity.